I always liked Colin Cowherd’s analogy about BPA: if your wife sends you to the store to get some stuff to make dinner and you come home with a rake and a bag of licorice because it was on sale, you’re probably heading for a divorce.

One of the most clueless takes I've ever read. No shock it would be from that guy.

---

I always liked Colin Cowherd’s analogy about BPA: if your wife sends you to the store to get some stuff to make dinner and you come home with a rake and a bag of licorice because it was on sale, you’re probably heading for a divorce.

One of the most clueless takes I've ever read. No shock it would be from that guy.

So say that you are picking 9th and you have a below average secondary with a need at CB. You have a solid DL with no real big need.  There is a DL sitting there who you have graded out as a top 5 player and a CB who is a top 10 player on your board. You’re taking the DL and continuing to have a hole at CB?

---

https://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/2019/05...nfl-draft/

---

One of the most clueless takes I've ever read. No shock it would be from that guy.

So say that you are picking 9th and you have a below average secondary with a need at CB. You have a solid DL with no real big need.  There is a DL sitting there who you have graded out as a top 5 player and a CB who is a top 10 player on your board. You’re taking the DL and continuing to have a hole at CB?

You should always leave the better players on the board for other teams to take. You don't need the best players, you just need the best player at your worst position. That's why so many people loved the Brian Anger pick, we got the best player for our worst position!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

One of the most clueless takes I've ever read. No shock it would be from that guy.

So say that you are picking 9th and you have a below average secondary with a need at CB. You have a solid DL with no real big need.  There is a DL sitting there who you have graded out as a top 5 player and a CB who is a top 10 player on your board. You’re taking the DL and continuing to have a hole at CB?

If the defensive lineman is better than the cb then take the lineman or trade out of the pick. Never take Bryan Anger because you don't think you need Russell Wilson.

---

So say that you are picking 9th and you have a below average secondary with a need at CB. You have a solid DL with no real big need.  There is a DL sitting there who you have graded out as a top 5 player and a CB who is a top 10 player on your board. You’re taking the DL and continuing to have a hole at CB?

If the defensive lineman is better than the cb then take the lineman or trade out of the pick. Never take Bryan Anger because you don't think you need Russell Wilson.

Horrible example. 

Passing on Morris Claiborne to select Fletcher Cox would be much more accurate to what PS9 is describing. And the cowboys likely wish they'd done exactly that.

I can't believe how many posters here actually don't believe that every GM will absolutely but need ahead of a small discrepancy in prospect rating.  It happens almost constantly throughout every draft.

---

So say that you are picking 9th and you have a below average secondary with a need at CB. You have a solid DL with no real big need.  There is a DL sitting there who you have graded out as a top 5 player and a CB who is a top 10 player on your board. You’re taking the DL and continuing to have a hole at CB?

If the defensive lineman is better than the cb then take the lineman or trade out of the pick. Never take Bryan Anger because you don't think you need Russell Wilson.

Bryan Anger is a starter! We drafted a starter in the 3rd round!

---

I remember people wanted to view the 2018 draft as "pure bpa", failing to realise Bryan, Chark and Ronnie were all going to big needs in a years time

---

If the defensive lineman is better than the cb then take the lineman or trade out of the pick. Never take Bryan Anger because you don't think you need Russell Wilson.

Horrible example. 

Passing on Morris Claiborne to select Fletcher Cox would be much more accurate to what PS9 is describing. And the cowboys likely wish they'd done exactly that.

I can't believe how many posters here actually don't believe that every GM will absolutely but need ahead of a small discrepancy in prospect rating.  It happens almost constantly throughout every draft.

Personally I think these clowns aren't any more able to discern talent than us people on a message board, that's why they go with need so hard. It's easy to see what your team doesn't have, it's harder to figure out which players are better than others in subtle ways when they've never even played pro football.

---

Horrible example. 

Passing on Morris Claiborne to select Fletcher Cox would be much more accurate to what PS9 is describing. And the cowboys likely wish they'd done exactly that.

I can't believe how many posters here actually don't believe that every GM will absolutely but need ahead of a small discrepancy in prospect rating.  It happens almost constantly throughout every draft.

Personally I think these clowns aren't any more able to discern talent than us people on a message board, that's why they go with need so hard. It's easy to see what your team doesn't have, it's harder to figure out which players are better than others in subtle ways when they've never even played pro football.

Question: how do you think an NFL team sets their selection boards?

---

Horrible example. 

Passing on Morris Claiborne to select Fletcher Cox would be much more accurate to what PS9 is describing. And the cowboys likely wish they'd done exactly that.

I can't believe how many posters here actually don't believe that every GM will absolutely but need ahead of a small discrepancy in prospect rating.  It happens almost constantly throughout every draft.

Personally I think these clowns aren't any more able to discern talent than us people on a message board, that's why they go with need so hard. It's easy to see what your team doesn't have, it's harder to figure out which players are better than others in subtle ways when they've never even played pro football.

Well, the worst GMs are indeed able to discern talent better than the vast majority of MB posters.  Some of them (like Gene Smith) probably should have never been promoted beyond regional scouting, but that's another topic. That's about personnel management, roster building strategy, etc.   You're talking about talent evaluation specifically. 

The second half of your first sentence asserts that "they go with need so hard."  Well, they really don't go hard with need 95% of the time.  Sometimes they reach too "hard" for need. (see 70% of QB selections) But most of the time they merely are willing to move a few notches down their big board to help their roster with a need rather than create redundancy.  It very often works out just fine. 

Another thing that factors in here is that many of these better GMs are wise when it comes to evaluating other teams' likely picks or positional focus. They know VALUE.  They know where they can score players they need. 

For instance, Baltimore was all in 100% on drafting Lamar Jackson. They jettisoned Flacco and hired an offensive coordinator specifically for Jackson prior to drafting him. 
But they drafted Hayden Hurst ahead of him. 
Now the Ravens may have had the most respected GM and front office in the league at that time. 
But you'd have me believe that they either had Hayden Hurst rated higher than Lamar Jackson, or that they "needed" TE more than they needed a QB, right?  Since it's always either one (BAP) or the other (need) with you.

---

Personally I think these clowns aren't any more able to discern talent than us people on a message board, that's why they go with need so hard. It's easy to see what your team doesn't have, it's harder to figure out which players are better than others in subtle ways when they've never even played pro football.

Question: how do you think an NFL team sets their selection boards?

If I were to guess the case of the Jags (since they have Tony Khan) they probably start with a formula that ranks players by position based on measurables, production, and program quality. Then they start rearranging based on need.

---

Caldwell admitted he regretted blowing up the roster when he took over. It took him much longer to rebuild it than he had planned. He finally was able to build a solid roster and for whatever reason Coughlin was brought in after the best draft possibly in team history. Then Coughlin used his authoritarian ways to run off players and we go from one of the very best defenses in the league to the dirt worst.
I feel Caldwell is going to have a great draft and turn it around again. This draft is deep and we have a lot of picks. If Khan lets him do his job and lets him do it his way, I believe in him.

---

Question: how do you think an NFL team sets their selection boards?

If I were to guess the case of the Jags (since they have Tony Khan) they probably start with a formula that ranks players by position based on measurables, production, and program quality. Then they start rearranging based on need.

You would be incorrect. Teams build their boards vertical and horizontal based on their talent, depth of class, need and positional value. 

Also Tony Khan hasn't been anywhere near as big a part of the draft system as you imply. Most of his contributions came in day 3 and udfa.

---

Caldwell admitted he regretted blowing up the roster when he took over. It took him much longer to rebuild it than he had planned. He finally was able to build a solid roster and for whatever reason Coughlin was brought in after the best draft possibly in team history. Then Coughlin used his authoritarian ways to run off players and we go from one of the very best defenses in the league to the dirt worst.
I feel Caldwell is going ro have a great draft and turn it around again. This draft is deep and we have a lot of picks. If Khan lets him do his job and lets him do it his way, I believe in him.

Well Said.

I too believe in Caldwell. 

NH3...

---

"AZANE"

One of the most clueless takes I've ever read. No shock it would be from that guy.

So say that you are picking 9th and you have a below average secondary with a need at CB. You have a solid DL with no real big need.  There is a DL sitting there who you have graded out as a top 5 player and a CB who is a top 10 player on your board. You’re taking the DL and continuing to have a hole at CB?

Yep
See: We don't need Roethlisberger, we have Leftwich. Etc.

With the turnover of rosters, guys like Yan wanting out, Taven Bryan being a "?" Smoot more of just a role player, a huge need at NT, Campbell age....
I mean why wouldn't we take the DL guy?

Sure we have Herndon and then nothing behind him at CB but I think the drop off on DL talent later in the draft is bigger than the drop off at CB in late 1st and 2nd rounds.

Also.... The rake analogy doesn't really fit with this.

The rake analogy is more like having a need at DL or CB and taking a RB at 9
See: Fournette top 5 instead of QB, TE, OL
Taven Bryan round 1 instead of QB, TE, OL
etc.... (Coughlin recently divorced btw)

---

So say that you are picking 9th and you have a below average secondary with a need at CB. You have a solid DL with no real big need.  There is a DL sitting there who you have graded out as a top 5 player and a CB who is a top 10 player on your board. You’re taking the DL and continuing to have a hole at CB?

Yep
See: We don't need Roethlisberger, we have Leftwich. Etc.

With the turnover of rosters, guys like Yan wanting out, Taven Bryan being a "?" Smoot more of just a role player, a huge need at NT, Campbell age....
I mean why wouldn't we take the DL guy?

Sure we have Herndon and then nothing behind him at CB but I think the drop off on DL talent later in the draft is bigger than the drop off at CB in late 1st and 2nd rounds.

Also.... The rake analogy doesn't really fit with this.

The rake analogy is more like having a need at DL or CB and taking a RB at 9
See: Fournette top 5 instead of QB, TE, OL
Taven Bryan round 1 instead of QB, TE, OL
etc.... (Coughlin recently divorced btw)

Bryan could of been the right pick if he is good.  He just hasnt been that good yet.  I'm hoping he turns it on this year

---

So say that you are picking 9th and you have a below average secondary with a need at CB. You have a solid DL with no real big need.  There is a DL sitting there who you have graded out as a top 5 player and a CB who is a top 10 player on your board. You’re taking the DL and continuing to have a hole at CB?

Yep
See: We don't need Roethlisberger, we have Leftwich. Etc.

With the turnover of rosters, guys like Yan wanting out, Taven Bryan being a "?" Smoot more of just a role player, a huge need at NT, Campbell age....
I mean why wouldn't we take the DL guy?

Sure we have Herndon and then nothing behind him at CB but I think the drop off on DL talent later in the draft is bigger than the drop off at CB in late 1st and 2nd rounds.

Also.... The rake analogy doesn't really fit with this.

The rake analogy is more like having a need at DL or CB and taking a RB at 9
See: Fournette top 5 instead of QB, TE, OL
Taven Bryan round 1 instead of QB, TE, OL
etc.... (Coughlin recently divorced btw)

The rake analogy is so bad there no way to fix it. It's more like seeing a nice backhoe for a price you can afford, but maybe you already have some tool that can also dig but isn't as good, so what you get instead is a less good tool that probably won't even do a good job at what you need it for, but it'll cost the same as the backhoe that you found for a much better deal. Which do you do, spend the money on the backhoe, or spend the same amount on something else less good?

---

I always liked Colin Cowherd’s analogy about BPA: if your wife sends you to the store to get some stuff to make dinner and you come home with a rake and a bag of licorice because it was on sale, you’re probably heading for a divorce.

One of the most clueless takes I've ever read. No shock it would be from that guy.

It just doesn't work because he's literally not comparing apples to apples. If the intention is to make a good meal, and he comes back with a rake, then they have completely different objectives.

A better metaphor would be the wife (the coach in this metaphor) sends him (the GM) with a shopping list and a budget. They both have the same objective: make a good meal (team). The wife wants to make a roast chicken, so everything on the shopping list is for that. However, at the store, the husband sees that the last good chickens have just been bought by someone else, and the only ones left are small and don't look so great. So, knowing there is more than one way to make a good meal, he instead uses his budget on the steak that has just been put on offer. Maybe the wife would have preferred chicken, but, unless she's completely irrational, she would understand you can't make a good meal if you don't have good ingredients, and you can just as easily put together a great meal with other ingredients as long as they are good.

Mmmmm steak.

---

One of the most clueless takes I've ever read. No shock it would be from that guy.

It just doesn't work because he's literally not comparing apples to apples. If the intention is to make a good meal, and he comes back with a rake, then they have completely different objectives.

A better metaphor would be the wife (the coach in this metaphor) sends him (the GM) with a shopping list and a budget. They both have the same objective: make a good meal (team). The wife wants to make a roast chicken, so everything on the shopping list is for that. However, at the store, the husband sees that the last good chickens have just been bought by someone else, and the only ones left are small and don't look so great. So, knowing there is more than one way to make a good meal, he instead uses his budget on the steak that has just been put on offer. Maybe the wife would have preferred chicken, but, unless she's completely irrational, she would understand you can't make a good meal if you don't have good ingredients, and you can just as easily put together a great meal with other ingredients as long as they are good.

Mmmmm steak.

Which comes back to another problem the Jaguars have, their wife (coach) only knows how to cook chicken (run one scheme). When you're hiring coaches that don't understand how to fit scheme to player and only know how to run one scheme it's very difficult for a GM to be successful, because even if he takes talented players a bad coach wastes that talent.

---